The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party challenging a compromise can file a petition under the relevant legal provisions or an appeal, and the court emphasized the availability of remedies for challenging compromises.

Janak Raj Kotwal, J.:-

1. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff for setting aside judgment dated 31.12.2013, whereby learned Sub Registrar (Munsiff), Jammu 'disposed of as compromised' the civil suit filed by him against the respondent and directed drawing of the decree sheet in terms of the compromise deed. Heard. I have perused the record.

2. Facts giving rise to this revision petition, briefly, are that in the suit filed by him the petitioner/plaintiff had sought declaration that the will-deed executed on 13.11.1992 and registered on 30.11.1992 allegedly by his father, Bhula Ram, in regard to land comprised in Khasra Nos. 296 (9 kanals 3 marlas) and 297 (10 marlas) in favour of the respondent is null and void with consequential relief restraining defendant from interfering into his peaceful possession of the said land. Petitioner questioned the legality of the will-deed and sought it to be declared as null and void mainly on the grounds that the same was got executed by the defendant by misrepresentation and in deceitful manner from his father who was devotee of Radha Swami Sect and that his father Bhulla Ram, who was a displaced person of 1947, had been granted occupancy rights of the said land under section 3-A of Agrarian Reforms Act and no Will in respect of such rights could have been executed. Respondent/defendant contested petitioner's suit on various grounds and issues were framed by the trial court. However, file of the case came to be taken up in presence of counsel for the parties on 31.12.2013 by preponing the date of hearing on an application moved by the petitioner/plaintiff accompanied with a compromise agreement executed by the parties. As per this agreement the respondent gave possession of two kanals of land out of khasra No. 296 min to the petitioner in lieu of withdrawing the said suit and another suit filed by him. The petitioner agreed to withdraw both the suits and not to file any litigation in future. The learned trial court after recording statements of the parties passed the impugned judgment disposing of the suit as compromised and directing drawing of the decree sheet on the basis of a deed of compromise produced by the parties. The brief judgment recorded by the learned trial court on 31.12.2013 reads:

"The file has been taken up today on an application filed for early listing of the case. The learned counsel for the plaintiff filed an application averring therein that a compromise has been arrived between the parties whereby the plaintiff has agreed to resolve the dispute with respect to the landed property, as such, the plaintiff does not want to pursue the said suit. It is further submitted in the application that a compromise deed has also been executed between the parties. Finally, it has been prayed that a decree in terms of compromise deed may be passed. The application is accompanied by a compromise deed duly signed by both the parties. In support of the compromise, the statements of both the parties recorded who are duly identified by their learned counsels.

Keeping in view that the parties have entered into compromise. Accordingly, the suit is disposed of as compromised. A decree sheet shall be prepared accordingly in terms of the compromise deed. The compromise deed shall form part of the decree. Decree shall bind parties to the suit only and shall in no way affect the rights of any third party. No order as to costs. The file after due compilation shall be consigned to record room."

3. While reading the revision petition, Mr. P.N. Raina, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, painstakingly sought to demonstrate that the compromise said to have been arrived at between the parties was illegal being contrary to section 67 of the J & K Tenancy Act, Svt. 1980 so recording of such a compromise and disposal of the suit and passing of the decree on its basis by the trial court is illegal and null and void. Mr. Raina sought to explain that the main ground of